Male and female speech: a study of mean f0, f0 range,
phonation type and speech rate in Parisian French and
American English speakers
Erwan Pépiot
To cite this version:
Erwan Pépiot. Male and female speech: a study of mean f0, f0 range, phonation type and
speech rate in Parisian French and American English speakers. Speech Prosody 7, May 2014,
Dublin, Ireland. pp.305-309, 2014. <halshs-00999332>
HAL Id: halshs-00999332
https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00999332
Submitted on 3 Jun 2014
HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.
L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.
Male and female speech: a study of mean f0, f0 range, phonation type and speech
rate in Parisian French and American English speakers
Erwan Pépiot 1
1
Department of Anglophone Studies, University Paris 8, France
[email protected]
Abstract
Many studies have been conducted on acoustic differences
between female and male speech. However, they have
generally been led on speakers of only one language, and have
focused on a single acoustic parameter. The present study is an
acoustic analysis of dissyllabic words or pseudo-words
produced by 10 Northeastern American English speakers (5
females, 5 males) and 10 Parisian French speakers (5 females,
5 males). Several prosodic parameters were measured: mean
f0, f0 range, phonation type (through H1-H2 intensity
differences) and words’ duration. Significant cross-gender
differences were obtained for each tested parameter.
Moreover, cross-language variations were observed for f0
range, and H1-H2 differences. These results suggest that
cross-gender acoustic differences are partly languagedependent and could be socially constructed.
Index Terms: speech and gender, fundamental frequency,
phonation type, speech rate, cross-gender acoustic differences,
cross-language variations, Parisian French, American English.
1. Introduction
Numerous studies on acoustic differences between female and
male speech have been conducted. Among the different
acoustic parameters, mean fundamental frequency is
commonly considered the major cross-gender difference. It
would be around 120 Hz for men and 200 Hz for women [1]
[2], hence a higher pitch in female speech. These values
slightly vary through age [3] and are broadly lower for
smokers [4]. Mean f0 is also known to be a decisive clue in
speaker’s gender identification from speech [5] [6] [7].
Several authors have brought to light that vowel formants
tend to be located at higher frequencies in female speakers [8]
[9] [10] [11]. The scope of this cross-gender difference
strongly varies from one study to another, from one formant to
another, and seems to depend on vowel type. The spectral
characteristics of consonants also differ as a function of
speaker’s gender [12] [13] [14]: once again, resonant
frequencies tend to be higher in female speech.
Aside from mean f0, other suprasegmental parameters
could be gender-dependent. Some studies suggest that f0 range
would be larger for female speakers [1] [15]. Nonetheless,
there is no strict consensus on this point [16]: the acoustic unit
used to measure f0 range appears to be determining. When
calculated in hertz, f0 range is almost unequivocally larger in
female speech, but it is unclear whether this difference exists
when it is calculated in semitones [17] [18]. This can be
accounted for by human perception of pitch [16]: female
speakers, who typically have a higher mean f0 than males,
have to use a larger raw range (i.e. in hertz) to reach the same
perceived pitch variation (i.e. in semitones).
Phonation type also seems to depend on speaker’s gender.
Female voices are often considered more breathy (i.e. having a
greater glottal open quotient –GOQ) than male voices [19]
[20] [21]. Male voices, at least in American English speakers,
are typically more creaky (i.e. having a very low GOQ) than
female ones [22]. However, these results slightly vary from
one study to another, and depend on the acoustic parameter
used to estimate phonation type. Intensity difference between
H1 and H2 could be the most reliable measurement [23], if
used properly [24].
Potential male-female differences in speech rate have also
been investigated. In a broad study led on 600 American
English speakers, Byrd [25] found that mean utterance
duration was 6.2 % lower in male speakers, thus indicating a
faster speech rate than female speakers. Similar tendencies
were found in more recent studies [26] [27]. However, several
authors found no significant cross-gender differences on this
parameter [28] [29].
Some of these cross-gender acoustic variations can mainly
be accounted for by anatomical and physiological differences
that arise during puberty. First of all, vocal folds become
longer and thicker in male speakers [30], which would account
for their lower mean f0. A second relevant anatomical
parameter is vocal tract length, which corresponds to the
distance from the vocal folds to the lips: all things being equal,
the longer the vocal tract, the lower resonant frequencies [31].
The average length of the adult male vocal tract is about 17 to
18 cm, while the average female vocal tract is 14.5 cm long
[16]. It would explain, at least partially, why consonant noise
and vowel formants frequencies are generally higher in female
speakers.
Most of the previously mentioned studies were conducted
on English speakers. Interesting facts arise when one considers
other languages’ data. For instance, a study reported that in
Chinese Wu dialect, mean F0 was almost equivalent for male
and female speakers [32]. Furthermore, if one compares
various acoustic studies about vowel formant frequencies
conducted on different languages [33, 34], one can notice that
cross-gender differences vary from one language to another:
for example, female-male differences are relatively small in
Danish but appear to be much greater in Russian.
How to account for such cross-language differences?
Physiological and anatomical cross-gender differences are
very unlikely to explain then, and one must consider the
possibility of socially constructed behaviors. Nonetheless, we
have to take into account that the comparisons made by
Johnson [33, 34] were based on several studies led by different
authors, at different times and using different methods.
Therefore, we must be very careful when interpreting such
results, which need to be confirmed.
Given such facts, it seems relevant to conduct a crosslanguage study on acoustic differences between female and
male speech. Moreover, we can notice that most studies in this
field focus on a single acoustic parameter, although a
multiparametric analysis would probably be much more
productive. The present study is an acoustic analysis
conducted jointly on Parisian French and Northeastern
American English female and male speakers. It focuses on the
following prosodic parameters: mean f0, f0 range, phonation
type and speech rate. The general hypothesis is that crossgender acoustic differences are partly language-dependent.
2. Material and method
2.1. Linguistic material
French and English linguistic material was required for this
study. Dissyllabic words and pseudo-words were used, so that
many phoneme combinations could be tested. Their selection
was based on two main criteria: make the two corpora as
similar as possible, and limit the number of combinations by
choosing only the most relevant phonemes while holding the
last CV sequence constant: /pi/ was chosen as it can appear in
word final position in both languages. Twenty-seven (C)VCV
words or pseudo-words were finally chosen for each language:

/C (plosive) – V – p – i / combinations: /tipi/, /tapi/,
/tupi/, /dipi/, /dapi/, /dupi/, /kipi/, /kapi/, /kupi/, /gipi/,
/gapi/, /gupi/ for the French corpus, /ˈti:pi/ , /ˈtӕpi/,
/ˈtu:pi/, /ˈdi:pi/, /ˈdӕpi/, /ˈdu:pi/, /ˈki:pi/, /ˈkӕpi/, /ˈku:pi/,
/ˈgi:pi/, /ˈgӕpi/, /ˈgu:pi/ for the English corpus.
 /C (fricative) – V – p – i / combinations: /sipi/, /sapi/,
/supi/, /zipi/, /zapi/, /zupi/, /ʃipi/, /ʃapi/, /ʃupi/, /ʒipi/, /ʒapi/,
/ʒupi/ for the French corpus, /ˈsi:pi/, /ˈsӕpi/, /ˈsu:pi/,
/ˈzi:pi/, /ˈzӕpi/, /ˈzu:pi/, /ˈʃi:pi/, /ˈʃӕpi/, /ˈʃu:pi/, /ˈʒi:pi/,
/ˈʒӕpi/, /ˈʒu:pi/ for the English corpus.
 /V – p – i / combinations: /ipi/, /api/, /upi/ for the French
corpus, /ˈi:pi/, /ˈӕpi/, /ˈu:pi/ for the English corpus.
English words were read by American speakers while
French words were read by French speakers. There is no
phonological lexical stress in French [35], but within the frame
sentence used for the recordings (see 2.3) French speakers
naturally produced an emphatic stress on the first syllable of
each experimental word.
2.2. Speakers
Twenty monolingual speakers were recorded. Ten of them
were French native speakers (5 women, 5 men) and ten others
were American English native speakers (5 women and 5 men).
The 10 American speakers all came from the same
northeastern area of the United States (Pennsylvania,
Massachusetts, New York State, or southern Vermont). The 10
French speakers all came from Paris area (Ile-de-France).
Speakers were aged from 20 to 40 (SD=6.5 years). Mean age
was 28.2 for US speakers (29.4 for females, 27 for males) and
26.6 for French speakers (27.2 for females, 26 for males). All
speakers were non-smokers and had reported no speech
disorder. Each of them received a USB memory stick for their
participation in the study and was informed that the data from
the recordings would be treated with confidentiality.
2.3. Recording procedure
Recordings took place in a quiet room, using a digital recorder
Edirol R09-HR by Roland. English speakers read the English
corpus aloud and French speakers the French one. Words were
presented to the participants in an orthographical transcription.
In order to make prosodic parameters consistent, words were
placed into a frame sentence: “He said ‘WORD’ twice” for the
English corpus and “Il a dit ‘MOT’ deux fois” for the French
one. Speakers were asked to say each sentence twice, at a
normal speech rate.
2.4. Acoustic analysis
Data analysis was conducted with Praat software. After
having extracted the words from the frame sentence, their
duration (in milliseconds) and mean f0 (in Hertz) were
obtained by creating a Pitch file for each word, and performing
Get total duration and Get mean commands. This operation
was automated by a Praat script.
F0 range is the difference between the highest and the
lowest f0 frequency reached within a given linguistic unit
(here, a dissyllabic word). It was collected manually through
the Pitch info window: these data were taken in hertz as well
as in semitones, which is a much more adequate scale [16].
In order to estimate phonation type, intensity differences
between H1 and H2 were measured. The relative strength of
H1 is correlated with glottal open quotient (GOQ): the
stronger H1 is, the higher the GOQ [19, 23]. Nevertheless, H1H2 can only be measured on open vowels: F1 would otherwise
distort the results [19]. Thus, vowel [a] for French speakers
and vowel [ӕ] for English speakers were the only ones taken
into account.
Figure 1. Measurement of H1-H2 intensity differences on
vowel [ӕ] extracted from word [ӕpi] produced by an
American Female speaker.
A 5 period selection was made on a central portion of each
vowel. As shown in Figure 1, the corresponding spectrum was
displayed and the difference between H1 and H2 intensity (in
dB) was then calculated manually.
3. Results
3.1. Mean f0
Mean f0 (Hz) for French and American English speakers
as a function of speaker’s gender is presented in Table 1,
below.
Table 1. Mean f0 (Hz) measured on the 27 (C)VCV words for
female (n=5) and male (n=5) French speakers and female
(n=5) and male (n=5) American English speakers. Standard
deviation among the 135 measurements (27 words * 5
speakers) is also mentioned for the four groups.
French Speakers
American speakers
Females
Males
Females
Males
Mean f0 (Hz) all words
234
133
210
119
SD
18
12
27
19
Unsurprisingly, mean f0 appeared to be much higher for
female speakers in both languages. The scope of this crossgender difference is perfectly similar from one language to
another: in both cases, females’ mean f0 is 76 % higher than
males’. Moreover, we can notice that mean f0 for both genders
is slightly lower in American English speakers.
In order to test if these tendencies were significant, several
statistical tests were conducted. First of all, a one factor
ANOVA (“speaker’s gender”) was led on French speakers’
data. The test revealed a very strong and significant effect of
this factor: F(1,268)=3064.26 ; p<.0001. A similar statistical test
was performed on American English speakers’ data. Once
again, the speaker’s gender appeared to have a very significant
effect on mean f0: F(1,268)=1045.21 ; p<.0001. These results
confirm that mean f0 was significantly higher for female
speakers in both languages.
3.2. F0 range
F0 range for French and American English speakers as a
function of speaker’s gender is presented in Table 2. It was
calculated both in Hertz and in semitones.
Table 2. F0 range (Hz and st) measured on the 27 (C)VCV
words for female (n=5) and male (n=5) French speakers and
female (n=5) and male (n=5) American English speakers.
Standard deviation among the 135 measurements (27 words *
5 speakers) is also mentioned for the four groups.
French Speakers
American speakers
Females
Males
Females
Males
Mean f0 range in
Hertz - all
words
90
41
74
40
SD
22
11
19
15
Mean f0 range in
semitones - all
words
6.76
5.35
5.87
5.95
SD
1.81
1.37
1.45
1.78
When calculated in Hertz, f0 range was much larger for
female speakers in both languages. It was 120 % wider for
females in French speakers, and 85 % wider for females in
American English speakers. When the data are converted into
semitones, a scale that shows the perceived pitch variation, the
cross-gender difference completely disappears in American
English speakers. On the other hand, f0 range remains
substantially higher for females in French speakers (+ 26 %).
One factor ANOVAs (“speaker’s gender”) were conducted
on French speakers’ data. When f0 range was calculated in
Hertz, a very strong and significant effect of this factor was
found: F(1,268)=549.19 ; p<.0001. When the data were given in
semitones, the analysis also reveals a strong and significant
effect of the speaker’s gender: F(1,268)=51.71 ; p<.0001.
Therefore, in French speakers, mean f0 range appeared to be
significantly wider for females, even when it was expressed in
semitones.
Similar statistical analyses were made on American
English speakers’ data. When f0 range was expressed in Hertz,
the test indicated a significant effect of speaker’s gender:
F(1,268)=266.23 ; p<.0001. On the other hand, when the data
were expressed in semitones, no significant effect of this
factor was found: F(1,268)=.14 ; p=.71. These results confirm
that f0 range was wider in female than in male American
English speakers when expressed in hertz. However, contrary
to French speakers, f0 range was no longer wider in female
speakers when it was converted into semitones.
3.3. Phonation type
Mean intensity difference (dB) between the first (H1) and
the second harmonic (H2) for French and American English
speakers as a function of speaker’s gender is presented in
Table 3. It was measured on open vowels, giving a total of 9
measurements for each speaker (9 words contained vowel [a]
in the French corpus while 9 words contained vowel [ӕ] in the
English corpus).
Table 3. H1-H2 mean difference (dB) measured on the 9 open
vowels of each corpus, for female (n=5) and male (n=5)
French speakers and female (n=5) and male (n=5) American
English speakers. Standard deviation among the 45
measurements (9 words * 5 speakers) is also mentioned for the
four groups.
French Speakers
American speakers
Females
Males
Females
Males
Mean H1-H2
difference (dB)
in open vowels
3.8
-1.4
4.0
-2.9
SD
2.5
1.3
2.6
2.2
H1-H2 intensity difference appeared to be greater in
female speakers. It was true in both languages. This crossgender difference reaches 5.2 dB in French speakers and 6.9
dB in American English speakers. This cross-language
variation is mainly due to American English male speakers,
who had a particularly weak H1.
A one factor ANOVA (“speaker’s gender”) was performed
on French speakers’ data. The analysis revealed a significant
effect of this factor over H1-H2 intensity difference:
F(1,88)=157.22 ; p<.0001. The same statistical test was
conducted on American English speakers’ data. Similarly to
French speakers, this test indicated that there was a significant
effect of speaker’s gender: F(1,88)=180.04 ; p<.0001. These
results confirmed that in both languages H1-H2 difference was
higher in female speakers, which suggests that females’
phonation type tends to be more breathy than males’.
In order to test if cross-language variations were
significant, other statistical tests were conducted. Females’
data from both languages were gathered and a one factor
ANOVA (“speaker’s language) was performed. The analysis
showed no significant effect of this factor: F(1,88)=.11 ; p=.74.
A similar test was conducted on males’ data. This time, a
significant effect of speaker’s language was found:
F(1,88)=13.55 ; p=.0004. This analysis confirmed that American
male speakers had a significantly lower H1-H2 intensity
difference than French male speakers, which suggests they
used a creakier phonation type.
3.4. Speech rate
Mean word duration (ms) for French and American
English speakers as a function of speaker’s gender is presented
in Table 4, below.
Table 4. Mean word duration (ms) measured on the 27
(C)VCV words for female (n=5) and male (n=5) French
speakers and female (n=5) and male (n=5) American English
speakers. Standard deviation among the 135 measurements
(27 words * 5 speakers) is also mentioned for the four groups.
French Speakers
American speakers
Females
Males
Females
Males
Mean word
duration (ms)
510
445
555
441
SD
90
58
77
54
Results show that mean word duration was higher for
female speakers in both languages. Cross-gender difference is
wider in American English speakers (+26 %) than in French
speakers (+15 %). This variation can be accounted for by the
difference between French and American Female speakers: the
words produced by the latter appeared to be longer than those
produced by the former (+9 %).
A one factor ANOVA (“speaker’s gender”) was conducted
on French speakers’ data. This test indicated that there is a
significant effect of this factor on words’ mean duration:
F(1,268)=48.94 ; p<.0001. The same analysis conducted on
American English speakers’ data reveals a strong and
significant effect of speaker’s gender: F(1,268)=200.28 ;
p<.0001. These results confirm that speech rate was
significantly higher for male speakers in both languages.
4. Discussion - conclusions
This cross-language acoustic analysis has given several
remarkable results. Mean fundamental frequency, measured on
dissyllabic words, was significantly higher for women in both
languages, which broadly confirms results obtained in
previous studies [1] [2]. Moreover, even though mean f0 was
slightly lower for both genders in American English speakers,
the scope of the female-male difference was very similar in the
two languages. This suggests that cross-gender differences in
mean f0 are relatively consistent across languages, apart from a
few known exceptions, such as Chinese Wu dialect, in which
male speakers tend to use an exceptionally high f0 [32].
Regarding f0 range, measurements have highlighted an
interesting cross-language variation. When data were taken in
hertz, f0 range appeared to be significantly wider for female
speakers in both languages, which supports results from
previous studies [1] [15]. This cross-gender difference can be
accounted for by the fact that female speakers, who generally
have a higher mean f0, have to use a larger f0 range than males
(in hertz) to achieve the same perceived result in terms of pitch
variation.
Indeed, when f0 range was calculated in semitones, a scale
expressing perceived pitch variation, there was no more crossgender difference in American English speakers. However, f0
range was still significantly larger for French female speakers
compared to their male counterparts. These results clearly
support a former perceptual study from Pépiot [5] that showed
a tendency for French listeners to associate flat f0 with male
voices, whereas no such effect was found in American English
listeners.
H1-H2 intensity measurements in open vowels gave
precious indications about speakers’ phonation type. In both
languages, significant cross-gender differences were found.
H1’s relative intensity appeared to be significantly greater in
female than in male speakers, which suggests they tend to
speak with a greater GOQ, hence a more breathy phonation
type. Moreover, American English male speakers had a
significantly lower H1-H2 than French male speakers, with
strongly negative values. This indicates a very low GOQ,
hence a creakier voice. Such results support the claim that
female speakers’ breathy voice quality would have a
physiological origin [16], whereas male speakers’ use of
creaky voice would rather be socio-phonetic and languagedependant [22].
Concerning temporal measurements, dissyllabic words’
global duration was found to be significantly greater for
female speakers in both languages. These data are quite
similar to former results obtained by Byrd [25] and Whiteside
[27]. Cross-gender difference was slightly wider in American
English speakers. Nonetheless, these results may suggest that
the lower speech rate in female speakers, at least in a reading
task, could be fairly consistent across languages.
Overall, the present study has brought to light several
cross-gender differences, but also some cross-language
variation between Parisian French speakers and Northeastern
American English speakers. This tends to support the general
hypothesis which claimed that cross-gender acoustic
differences could be partly language-dependent. Furthermore,
some of the female-male differences found in this acoustic
analysis, such as differences in speech rate, are unlikely to be
explained by anatomical and physiological factors. A large
part of cross-gender variation is likely to be accounted for by
gender social construction. Therefore, these data may be of
interest for improving vocal rehabilitation of transgender
people [36]. They could also be useful in speech recognition
and automatic gender identification from speech.
Nevertheless, such results have to be interpreted with
caution. Only 5 men and 5 women were recorded for each
language. Despite the restrictive selection criteria and the
small intra-gender variation, it seems quite difficult to
generalize the results to the whole Parisian French and
American English speaker populations. Furthermore, it is
known that speech task influences several acoustic parameters,
such as speech rate and phonation type [37]. These corpora
were made of read dissyllabic words: it is unclear whether
similar results would be obtained with spontaneous speech.
5. Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the 20 speakers who agreed to
participate in the recordings. I am also grateful to the EA1569
laboratory of University Paris 8, which provided financial
support for this study. Finally, many thanks to Isabelle
Coydon, from NYU Paris, who was of great help for finding
the American English speakers.
6. References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
Takefuta, Y., Jancosek, E. G., & Brunt, M., “A statistical
analysis of melody curves in the intonation of American
English”, Proceedings of the 7th International Congress of
Phonetic Sciences - Montreal (1971), 1035-1039, 1972.
Boë, L-J., Contini, M., & Rakotofiringa, H., “Étude statistique de
la fréquence laryngienne”, Phonetica, 32: 1-23, 1975.
Pegoraro-Crook, M. I., “Speaking fundamental frequency
characteristics of normal Swedish subjects obtained by glottal
frequency analysis”, Folia Phoniatrica, 40: 82-90, 1988.
Gilbert, H. R. & Weismer, G. G., “The effects of smoking on the
speaking fundamental frequency of adult women”, Journal of
Psycholinguistic Research, 3: 225-231, 1974.
Pépiot, E., “Voix de femmes, voix d'hommes : à propos de
l'identification du genre par la voix chez des auditeurs
anglophones et francophones”, Plovdiv University “Paissii
Hilendarski” – Bulgaria, Scientific Works – Philology, 49: 418430, 2011.
Pausewang Gelfer, M., & Mikos, V., “The relative contributions
of speaking fundamental frequency and formant frequencies to
gender identification based on isolated vowels”, Journal of
Voice, 19: 544-554, 2005.
Coleman, R. O., “A comparison of the contributions of two voice
quality characteristics to the perception of maleness and
femaleness in the voice”, Journal of Speech and Hearing
Research, 19: 168-180, 1976.
Peterson, G. E., & Barney, H. L., “Control methods used in a
study of the identification of vowels”, Journal of the Acoustic
Society of America, 24: 175-184, 1952.
Hillenbrand, J., Getty, L. A., Clark, M. J., & Wheeler, K.,
“Acoustic characteristics of American English vowels”, Journal
of the Acoustic Society of America, 97: 3099-3111, 1995.
Whiteside, S. P., “Sex-specific fundamental and formant
frequency patterns in a cross-sectional study”, Journal of the
Acoustic Society of America, 110: 464-478, 2001.
Ericsdotter, C., Articulatory-acoustic relationships in Swedish
vowel sounds, PhD Thesis, Stockholm University, 2005.
Schwartz, M. F., “Identification of speaker sex from isolated
voiceless fricatives”, Journal of the Acoustic Society of America,
43: 1178-1179, 1968.
Nittrouer, S., “Children learn separate aspects of speech
production at different rates: Evidence from spectral moments”,
Journal of the Acoustic Society of America, 97: 520-530, 1995.
Jongman, A., Wayland, R., & Wong, S., “Acoustic
characteristics of English fricatives”, Journal of the Acoustic
Society of America, 108: 1252-1263, 2000.
Hwa Chen, S., “Sex differences in frequency and intensity in
reading and voice range profiles for Taiwanese adult speakers”,
Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica, 59: 1-9, 2007.
Simpson, A. P., “Phonetic differences between male and female
speech”, Language and Linguistics Compass, 3: 621-640, 2009.
Henton, C. G., “Fact and fiction in the description of female and
male pitch”, Language and Communication, 9: 299-311, 1989.
Herbst,
L.,
“Die
Umfänge
der
physiologischen
Hauptsprechtonbereiche von Frauen und Männern”, Zeitschrift
für Phonetik und Sprachliche Kommunikation, 22: 426-438,
1969.
Klatt, D. H. & Klatt, L. C., “Analysis, synthesis and perception
of voice quality variations among female and male talkers”,
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 87: 820-857, 1990.
Klatt, D. H., “Detailed spectral analysis of a female voice”,
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 80: S97, 1986.
Henton, C. G. & Bladon, R. A., “Breathiness in normal female
speech: Inefficiency versus desirability”, Language and
Communication, 5: 221-227, 1985.
[22] Henton, C. G., “Sociophonetic aspects of creaky voice”, Journal
of the Acoustical Society of America, 86: S26, 1989.
[23] Gordon, M. & Ladefoged, P., “Phonation types: A
crosslinguistic overview”, Journal of Phonetics, 29: 383-406,
2001.
[24] Simpson, A. P., “The first and second harmonics should not be
used to measure breathiness in male and female voices”, Journal
of Phonetics, 40: 477-490, 2012.
[25] Byrd, D., “Relations of sex and dialect to reduction”, Speech
Communication, 15: 39-54, 1994.
[26] Fitzsimons, M., Sheahan, N. & Staunton, H., “Gender and the
integration of acoustic dimensions of prosody: implications for
clinical studies”, Brain and Language, 78: 94-108, 2001.
[27] Whiteside, S. P., “Temporal-based acoustic-phonetic patterns in
read speech: Some evidence for speaker sex differences”, Journal
of the International Phonetic Association, 26: 23-40, 1996.
[28] Ray, G. B. & Zahn, C. J., “Regional speech rates in the United
States: A preliminary analysis”, Communication Research
Reports, 7: 34-37, 1990.
[29] Simpson, A. P. & Ericsdotter, C., “Sex-specific durational
differences in English and Swedish”, Proceedings of the 15th
International Congress of Phonetic Sciences - Barcelona, 11131116, 2003.
[30] Kahane, J., “A morphological study of the human prepubertal
and pubertal larynx”, American Journal of Anatomy, 151: 11-20,
1978.
[31] Fant, G., Acoustic Theory of Speech Production (2nd ed.),
Mouton, 1970.
[32] Rose, P., “How effective are long term mean and standard
deviation as normalization parameters for tonal fundamental
frequency?”, Speech Communication, 10: 229-247, 1991.
[33] Johnson, K., “Speaker normalization in speech perception”, in D.
Pisoni, & R. Remez, R. [Eds], The Handbook of Speech
Perception, 363-389, Blackwell Publishers, 2005.
[34] Johnson, K. “Resonance in an exemplar-based lexicon: the
emergence of social identity and phonology”. Journal of
Phonetics, 34: 485-499, 2006.
[35] Di Cristo, A., “Vers une modélisation de l'accentuation du
français : première partie”, Journal of French Language Studies,
9: 143-179, 1999.
[36] Wiltshire, A., “Not by pitch alone: a view of transsexual vocal
rehabilitation”, National Student Speech Language Hearing
Association Journal, 22: 53-57, 1995.
[37] Benoist-Lucy, A., Pillot-Loiseau, C., "The Influence of language
and speech task upon creaky voice use among six young
American women learning French", Proceedings of Interspeech
2013 - Lyon, 2395-2399, 2013.